Religious arguments against same sex marriage

[KarenNC]

Please check the following site: undiscoveredself.com/sppm/ from Beloved Disciple Catholic Church, Toronto

I would think that this quote from the website’s main page sums it up:
“We value His Holiness the Pope as our patriarch, spiritual father and symbol of unity; yet, we are Catholics-in-exile and are not under the authority of the Vatican.” (my emphasis added)

The founder is an ex-Jesuit priest. Looks to me like this is a stand-alone church that is no more Roman Catholic than is an Eastern Orthodox, Anglican or Baptist church.

If they do not consider themselves under the authority of the Vatican and the Vatican does not consider them an official part of the Roman Catholic Church (which seems to be the case), then I see no reason that one should be surprised when they differ from Roman Catholic teachings any more than one should be surprised that a Presbyterian might. The Roman Catholic Church does not consider itself bound to recognize what Presbyterians consider religiously valid marriage if it is not also in line with the criteria for Catholic sacramental marriage (say in the case of two divorced people).

Certainly, they seem to be as misleading as the Messianic Jewish congregations that claim to still be religiously Jewish when they are in fact Christian in order to attract Jews who think they are going to a true synagogue. A practice I would consider dishonest and dishonorable in both instances.

 

[Shiphrae]

originally posted by KarenNC
If they do not consider themselves under the authority of the Vatican and the Vatican does not consider them an official part of the Roman Catholic Church (which seems to be the case), then I see no reason that one should be surprised when they differ from Roman Catholic teachings any more than one should be surprised that a Presbyterian might. The Roman Catholic Church does not consider itself bound to recognize what Presbyterians consider religiously valid marriage if it is not also in line with the criteria for Catholic sacramental marriage (say in the case of two divorced people).

Since Presbyterians don’t call themselves Catholics, it is hardly the same. This church says that they are not under the leadership of the Pope. But do most people that attend it really know this? I’m not sure. Some people may really believe that they are attending Catholic services.

I remember many times in the past, {especially when traveling} stopping at a {Catholic} Church and attending the mass. One does not think to question whether or not it is truly Catholic.

It reminds me of an envelop that I recently recieved. It said that I had won $200, 000. The only problem was that I had to find the small print that asked me to send $200.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

 

[KarenNC]

Since Presbyterians don’t call themselves Catholics, it is hardly the same. This church says that they are not under the leadership of the Pope. But do most people that attend it really know this? I’m not sure. Some people may really believe that they are attending Catholic services.

I remember many times in the past, {especially when traveling} stopping at a {Catholic} Church and attending the mass. One does not think to question whether or not it is truly Catholic.

I’m afraid all religion is a bit of a case of caveat emptor. Based on what I saw on the website, I would think that anyone who is at all familiar with orthodox (small “o”) Catholic teachings would figure out pretty quickly that something seemed a bit odd, to say the least. I don’t know that there are any copyrights or barriers other than personal integrity to using the word “Catholic” in the name of one’s church if one wants to do so.

However, you can’t really equate this group separating themselves from the Church and performing marriage ceremonies that they feel are sacramentally valid but do not appear to claim are endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church to a legitimate priest who is indeed part of the Church performing what he claims is a Church sanctioned sacramental same sex marriage.

 

[Shiphrae]

originally posted by KarenNCHowever, you can’t really equate this group separating themselves from the Church and performing marriage ceremonies that they feel are sacramentally valid but do not appear to claim are endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church to a legitimate priest who is indeed part of the Church performing what he claims is a Church sanctioned sacramental same sex marriage.

As I mentioned in a former post, these ceremonies are not real sacramental offices. They are not sanctioned by the Church. However they are very misleading. I’m sure that the minister does not tell people, ‘oh by the way, we are performing heresy here’. They most likely don’t have a sign on the front of their church saying, ‘we are heretics’.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

 

[Elric]

As I mentioned in a former post, these ceremonies are not real sacramental offices. They are not sanctioned by the Church. However they are very misleading. I’m sure that the minister does not tell people, ‘oh by the way, we are performing heresy here’. They most likely don’t have a sign on the front of their church saying, ‘we are heretics’.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

So you are not arguing against civil unions and the like, just ‘sacramental wedding ceremonies’ or cathloic recignised marriages?

I have to say that I have never seen anyone on these forums argue in favor of gay cathloic weddings, in fact I would be opposed to the idea of making cathloic churches (or any religion opposed to homosexuality) perform gay marriages. That is simply not reasonable.

Government sanctioned is one thing, but expecting religious sanction from religions opposed to homosexuality in general is really a bit much.

 

[KarenNC]

As I mentioned in a former post, these ceremonies are not real sacramental offices. They are not sanctioned by the Church. However they are very misleading. I’m sure that the minister does not tell people, ‘oh by the way, we are performing heresy here’. They most likely don’t have a sign on the front of their church saying, ‘we are heretics’.

Well, no, one would not expect that any more than I would expect a Roman Catholic priest to stand up before each Mass and say “Btw, we are performing Jewish heresy here” because they don’t believe they are.

They appear to be sacramentally valid according to the criteria of that particular church for sacramental marriage, which is clearly stated not to be a part of the Roman Catholic Church. I am not sure why you would expect that the RCC would necessarily sanction a sacramental marriage from another faith tradition or that another faith tradition would ask that the RCC do so. Is the RCC in the habit of going and asking the Baptists to sanction their sacraments or does the RCC feel it can manage just fine on its own?

As for misleading, I as a non-Catholic was able to take about a 2 second look at their website and very clearly realize that they were not part of the RCC. If they are as open in their actual building and service (and I see no reason to believe that they would not be), I really don’t think anyone who has at least a modicum of understanding about what the RCC is and teaches would be mistaken. The name is a bit problematic, but this is far from the only church that uses the word “Catholic” to mean something other than the RCC.

The line in the second paragraph: “We value His Holiness the Pope as our patriarch, spiritual father and symbol of unity; yet, we are Catholics-in-exile and are not under the authority of the Vatican” is pretty plain. I don’t think any adult (or older child) Roman Catholic is going to be confused about whether a church should be under the authority of the Vatican if it is going to be Roman Catholic. I think that’s probably pretty well stressed in the RCC.

Are you aware of events including actually valid RC priests performing same sex marriages and saying that they are sacramentally valid within the RCC? I haven’t been able to find any on the web so far.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Simply put, its against the natural law.

everything that we humans do are natural law. for we are but the product of nature. our brain is natural. whatever our brains conjure is natural.

 

[East_and_West]

everything that we humans do are natural law. for we are but the product of nature. our brain is natural. whatever our brains conjure is natural.

“Natural” in Natural Law does not mean the law of the jungle as you seem to think. Natrual in this philosophical usage, means what is proper to a particular being. We recognize that have sex on the front lawn for everyone to see is not proper to the human nautre and thus it is against natural law. So, when you think of the term “Natural” in this discussion, think of the philosphical definition.

 

[AgnosTheist]

“Natural” in Natural Law does not mean the law of the jungle as you seem to think.

thats what Hailmary seems to think.

Natrual in this philosophical usage, means what is proper to a particular being. We recognize that have sex on the front lawn for everyone to see is not proper to the human nautre and thus it is against natural law. So, when you think of the term “Natural” in this discussion, think of the philosphical definition.

Arent you confusing culture with natural law?

IMO natural law should be limited to such things as the Laws of Physics. Natural law cannot apply to behavioral patterns, for life is all about change and innovation. What is natural to one specie is unnatural for another. For us its natural to use our brain for justifying how we use our body any way we want. Like if a wife wants to put her husband’s sex organ in her mouth, is that unnatural simply because no other specie does the same?

 

[KarenNC]

That depends on whether you consider human nature to be unchanging. There is ample anthropological and historical evidence for acceptance of having sex in public in various human societies, sometimes for ritual purposes, sometimes due to simple lack of available privacy, sometimes through simple lack of concern about seeing others engage in sexual activity. I think, therefore, it would be hard to argue that “we recognize that having sex on the front lawn for everyone to see is not proper to human nature”. We can, however, certainly recognize that it is not currently considered proper in the context of our society or in that of many other groups.

The Natural Law you mention also refers only to human beings, not to any sort of beings. Our understanding of what is appropriate according to Natural Law also changes over time.
radicalacademy.com/philnaturallaw.htm

 

[Shiphrae]

We can sum up this discussion by saying that homosexual activity is against Catholic teachings. Therefore homosexual marriage cannot be accepted in the Catholic Church.

Since there seems to be nothing more to say on this subject, I would request that the moderator close this thread.

Peace in Christ,
Shiphrae